Archive for March, 2010

Some years back I visited one of our pro-white gatherings on an island off the SC coast to meet a visiting lady from England who was a newly elected city councilwoman and a WN visiting from the Netherlands. In the course of conversation I talked about the huge number of burglaries in Europe and that most of them are committed, unlike in the US, when the family is at home.

The guy from the Netherlands denied that such burglaries took place. I said I knew about them, but if they didn’t occur where he was, they didn’t.

We went to have barbecue in south Georgia, and during the cookout the Dutchman went to sleep in a hammock. Then he said he slept very well.

In fact, he said, he had slept through two burglaries in his home.

I get this sort of thing all the time. People vigorously deny that something happens and then mention it. My brother tells me this is one of the frustrating things in his medical practice. People will mention what happened during their last coughing fit and he will point out that he asked them if they had coughing fits and they had said no.

I am probably a bit rigorous about this or I would be a very poor interrogator.

I tell people that I used to work in a prison and that the first thing every potential burglar wants to know is, “Is there a gun in there?”

My sister lives in a very high-price neighborhood. She caught the local disease of bragging that they didn’t have dirty old GUNS there. I REMEMBER specifically warning her not to say that, and to discourage her neighbors from bragging about that. She naturally thought I was being Lowah Clahss about the whole gun thing.

The next year two black guys walked in their front door and beat the hell out of her and her husband. They were South Carolina enough to fight back, but not smart enough not to let the world know they had no guns to protect their considerable property.

They’re lucky to have survived.

If you are going to let everybody know you are unarmed, you have to settle for regular burglaries as Europeans are or you have to keep your area all-white. That is as true today as it was when the North had lots of all-white suburbs.

Minorities are “being assimilated“ and guns are spreading in the US and burglary is totally out of control in Europe. I just happen to NOTICE it.

The story goes that Bernard Shaw once asked a woman he didn’t like whether she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She said, “Yes.”

Then he said, “I’ll give you ten shillings to go to bed with me.”

She is supposed to have answered, “What do you think I am?”

He replied, “We’ve established what you are. Now we’re discussing price.”

I was thinking about that as I watched Bill O’Reilly interviewing Ann Coulter last night. The subject was that she was going to speak on a campus and of course “activists” rioted and made that impossible. Meanwhile her speech in Canada was canceled by Canadians because a professor warned her she would go to prison in that country for saying the wrong thing.

There was a problem because O’Reilly is in the position of arguing price. Like most respectable non-leftists, he is more anxious to lead the lynch mob against anyone liberals choose to call racists than liberals are. In any case, with the O’Reillys and National Review around, they don’t need to.

Ann Coulter frustrated O’Reilly because he kept trying to give her a chance to prove she wasn’t a racist. She kept holding to the line that she should be able to say whatever she wished. O’Reilly finally sighed and said, “Well, I kept giving you the chance and you wouldn’t take it.”

As I understand it, his frustration was that he kept giving her a chance to deny any offensive remarks and she kept emphasizing that Thought Crime Laws were IN THEMSELVES bad. She is also the only mainline writer I know of who has criticized HOLY DIVERSITY ITSELF.

The only national writer I ever saw who praised European Thought Crimes laws was William Buckley. Hannity has said that anyone who opposed interracial marriage, as very one of the Founder Fathers did, was a Nazi.

Mr. Shaw, our prostitutes are on the professional right.

Ann Coulter made the point in passing that no one speaks on a campus without a body guard. O’Reilly didn’t comment on that. He certainly wouldn’t. If you say something liberals see as racist or Hate, O’Reilly likes to insist he would be one of the threatening crowd.

Back when ALL public officials opposed interracial marriage, if you knocked on the door of the Presidential Mansion, the White House, there was an excellent chance that the President would answer the door. But then again, presidents, even Reconstruction Republicans ones, all opposed intermarriage and not one single Reconstruction Government ever repealed the anti-miscegenation law in any state, so O’Reilly and Hannity would have forced the president to guard himself.

They SAY. But for a couple of squashy-assed respectable conservatives to scare Old Hickory seems unlikely. When Jackson died, someone asked his black butler if he went to heaven or hell. The man answered, “If Mr. Jackson wanted to go to heaven, nobody could have stood in his way.”

I doubt seriously if a modern body guard would be dumb enough to try to crack one of those old nuts.

But that was before the Obedient Generation. Nobody since the 1930s has said, “People won’t stand for that.”

About ANYTHING.

That is why it is so absurd for people to say that “The Constitution protects our rights.” Before World War II, WE protected our rights. Germany wrote its Weimar Constitution and Stalin wrote the most democratic constitution ever composed in 1936. The Nazis rightly insisted everything they did was under the old Weimar Constitution, and they were right.

The Weimar Constitution had an emergency section which allowed the government to do anything if it followed proper procedures. The Nazis governed under those emergency provisions and, given the huge Communist vote and the Depression, there was an emergency.

Stalin simply gave his wildly free constitution — it even allowed for the secessions we saw around 1990 — a Marxist INTERPRETATION.

The National Recovery Act passed by FDR in 1933 gave FDR price controls, profit controls, and, in fact, a socialist economic regime. The Supreme Court, appointed by Coolidge and Hoover, declared NRA unconstitutional.

Had the Court done that in 1933 when Roosevelt’s honeymoon period was on full blast, he could have gotten his Court Packing Scheme through and controlled the Court. But he didn’t try that until the 1938 election, when for the first time his electoral magic of 1932, 1934, and 1936 had died down, so he failed.

But, like Prohibition, the National Recovery Act failed because it was tried on the wrong generation. The Obedient Generation would have bitched and obeyed Prohibition, as they itched and obeyed after their dog-training, called Basic. With the NRA, it would have been enough show their manhood by bitching, because They Had Proven Their Courage in the War.

Old London Bridge was finished about 1200 AD and stood until the early nineteenth century. To pay its cost, it was lined with shops and living spaces, eight on the bridge. These were destroyed a century before the Old Bridge, the one the song says is falling down, was taken down completely.

In an earlier history I read the writer made fun of those who postulate that a “real” bridge across the Thames existed before the Romans, inspired by the Greeks who were inspired by the Egyptians, built it. Fords, being natural, yes. Even some tenuous wooded walkway across the Thames at some points which the hairy barbarians might have tossed up before running back into the woods.

But a BRIDGE?

Fiddle-faddle!

Everybody knew where BUILDING occurred. All the Historical, Earliest Buildings were right out there in the desert where we could find them. I wrote an article lately about how convenient it is that all the historical stuff happens to be right there where they can be easily found.

The latest book about London Bridge was written after a discovery a couple of miles downriver from the Old London Bridge.

It is a bridge. It is a HUGE bridge. It is dated to 1500 BC. The writer explains that was during the high bronze age, when there was lots of trade. But he still sticks to the thesis that there was nothing in the area of today’s LONDON at that time.

“They” would have found it, you see. Just like “They” would have found that bridge.

And that is the cement, the cement of pure faith, that holds together the entire accepted history on which Political Correctness, Modern History, Modern Thought, and Modern Archeology, are built.

History is not an area of study any more. History is an institution. You become a historian by being ordained by other historians. They don’t lay on hands but they still wear the robes. I keep repeating that one religious institution has more in common with other institutions than it does with the doctrine it claims to represent.

A conversation between Jesus and Buddha would have been entirely different from one between those representing Christianity and Buddhism today. These are institutions saying “Why cant we get along?“ not two men with their own rigid concepts of what is true.

It is hard to imagine two more opposite approaches than two men debating real truth and two institutions with vast resources to preserve trying to go along and get along.

But no one NOTICES this difference!

Each faith gets along with what it has, the remains of a vanished book called The Sayings of Our Lord written when some of those who saw Jesus were still alive, a set of Gospels each of which was written to be the ONLY Gospel, selected by a committee, and endless proven forgeries.

Behind all that is Christ.

Buddhists have the same sort of thing, shreds, institutions which are gone today.

The big difference is that Christianity, and I suppose Buddhism, can look to the Spirit of the Founder. But history just plods right on, ignoring the fact that it is an institution.

So what do historians DO? They dig among the shreds, just as religious institutions do, but, unlike religious institutions, they don’t ADMIT it.

It has often been remarked that Westerners are great at developing everything from Public Libraries and References of detailed information to the storage of literature.

At the same, any student of our actual history is puzzled by how, with our genius at storing and referencing knowledge, the same basic errors go on generation after generation. The classic example is how Galen’s Ancient Theory of Humors, which has no basis in fact at all, remained the basis of medicine and medical study right into the nineteenth century.

The answer is that an institution was built on it, an institution called The Medical Profession. To be an academic in that field, you had to be able to explain all things in Galen’s terms and in Galen’s Latin.

What the Medical Institution wanted was Latin and accumulated selected facts. Like any institution, it had no room for someone who was trying to invent the whole field again.

Who succeeded in Medicine when doctors killed as may as they cured? Those whose interest was not in cures, but in having Educated Doctors. If you could write in the right terms and in the right language, no one stopped to consider how many patients died or were cured.

A field of study steadily advances in KNOWLEDGE. But as it institutionalizes, everyone must FIT into the institution. It may or may not be that a major topic of debate at Universities in the Renaissance was how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, but there is no reason why it should not have been.

If you could use the accumulated doctrine and the correct language to discuss that point, you could easily have gotten a doctorate out of it before Occam came along.

What institutions routinely lost is not KNOWLEDGE but PERSPECTIVE. All the knowledge in the world means nothing if it looked at the world the wrong way.

But who can qualify for an INSTITUTION and make a correction in that Institution’s PERSPECTIVE?

BUGS demands a lot of knowledge. But in the new age, knowledge is handled by machines. Only perspective is now the exclusive talent of human beings.

My reading of history gets me into theological matters, but I have been hesitant to talk about them. But at the same time I had a strong feeling it was important.

Now, over eleven years in, I finally realize what a little THINKING would have made obvious. Nobody has made it clearer than I have that our problem is an Established RELIGION, not a viewpoint from Science or Intellectuality, but a RELIGION.

As I slap Dumb Robert over the head, I realize that a great deal of my practical, MUNDANE knowledge of THEOLOGY is the reason I understand Political Correctness so well. It is also the reason no one who works for our established faith, either as an acolyte or as a respectable conservative, can see reality.

To one who is a part of Political Correctness, PC is the Truth and the Culmination of All Things. In fact, the USE of those words would make its religious nature obvious. So they never apply the religious wording, but they apply the same doctrine every bit as rigidly.

There is a perfect symmetry between using “rubes” and rednecks as labels for those who do not Believe in Political Correctness and calling Unbelievers “heathens” and “pagans,” both words meaning country bumpkins or rednecks.

Herodotus had this attitude long before Christianity. Being an Indo-European, he gave us the earliest remaining — historians now would say “the earliest” factual accounts of ancient sites. But he did it for what we call a Modern historical reason; He was trying to prove that the gods of Greece were descended from the gods of Egypt, not from the gods of the rednecks from the Northern woods.

And, like those who call themselves historians today, he was dead wrong.

Theology is largely an attempt to explain away what is obviously wrong in one’s doctrine. History is largely an attempt to explain away what is wrong with OUR established religion’s dogma.

For a over half a millennium, the two great monotheistic faiths, Roman Christianity and Zoroastrianism, shared the world. Though competitors and often blood enemies, the two empires, Byzantine and Persian, referred to themselves as The Two Eyes of Civilization. Mani, who founded Manichaeism, was trying to unite the two great religions of his day and the Western world in his death’s-head theology.

Today no one would understand Mani’s universalist purpose. He is looked upon as an extremist though he saw himself as a centrist. He saw himself as a center of civilization against the rednecks. That is one thing that no historian who mentions Mani even considers. But Mani was sincerely trying to join the Two Eyes of Civilization against the Pagans, the polytheists, the rednecks.

Many have talked about how ridiculous yesterday’s True Faith preachers look today. The London preachers who denounced Jenner’s vaccination, the top theologians of the Established Church, spring to mind.

But at least those misguided theocrats are REMEMBERED. Who today remembers the respectable conservatives of their time, the Manis who tried to synthesize two piece of nonsense into a single, reasonable, whole pile of rubbish?

At least the doctrines are remembered. The fanatics are remembered because they had the courage to be just plain WRONG.

My Catholic BUGSers let me criticize the Catholic Church without going to pieces.

But if one is going to discuss institutions, one MUST discuss the Church. In fact, it is hard for someone not raised in Western society to understand what I mean by an institution, because they have instant recognition of what an institution, meaning an institution with a separate existence from other aspects of society, really is.

I have discussed the outright queer nature of British “public” schools, and everybody knows about that. But, as with the Mantra, you have a problem with them that only occurs to one who has spend his life, and made his living, explaining things to people.

Sure the British “public” schools are protected by an institution, but WHICH one are you referring to? The British Clahss system? The political left, which in this case is busy denying the origin of much of its own politics?

As I explained recently, even the Orthodox Church does not have the instant institutional identity we understand because of our familiarity with Catholic Church history. Since Constantine, it has been hard or impossible to separate Church and State in the Orthodox world.

This is a practical problem, and if you can come up with a pure institution to compare with the Catholic Church, I could sure use it.

People not familiar with legal history do not realize what a pure invention the corporation was. The Norman Invasion was a Joint Stock Operation. So was Iceland. So we had the mentality. But anyone connected with THAT Joint Stock Operation took the liabilities home with him.

If you were part of a joint venture, it was taken for granted you could be tried for what it did, and that every person in it was liable for its debts. The idea of having a SEPARATE ENTITY, an institution in which people risked only what they invested, was a completely new thing on the world stage.

The corporation is a PURE institution, but the corporation is made up of PARTS of different people. It is made up of different parts of different people.

The Church is the only institution I know that has its own existence, whole people, and the same part of the those who are not full time religious. So not only do I think the Church is the only example of as pure an institution as I need, but I don’t think the whole idea of corporate institutions would have been invented if it weren’t.

BBG doesn’t have to recite to me the reasons for anti-Catholic bigotry on Mommy Professor’s part. Hell, man, anti-Catholicism was called The Anti-Semitism of the Intellectuals even before we were BORN.

The end of the last article read, “And that could make ‘practicality’ in the new age a totally different thing.”

This has happened before. The development of printing made Luther’s power possible, but it did not occur in a vacuum. Western society invents things it has a need for.

By contrast, the printing press and the mechanical clock in China came on in a vacuum and disappeared in a vacuum. Printing in China, and in Korea which had an alphabetical script and only 24 letters, came and went in the same nothing.

This is why the example of the Donation of Constantine is so critical. Charlemagne’s court invented the Donation of Constantine. This is incomprehensible to accepted history, which sees Charlemagne as trying to get back to the Roman Empire ruled from Rome. Charlemagne had no such interest.

In Charlemagne’s time there was a recognized, legitimate Roman Empire, which had not had a break in its Imperial line since Constantine moved its capitol from Rome to Constantinople. It never occurred to anyone in the actual Roman Empire that moving the capitol constituted the Fall of Rome.

If it did, then the moving of the American capitol from New York to Washington would have been the Fall of America.

In his own time, the Court of Charlemagne had a practical problem. The Pope, probably against his wishes, had made Charlemagne Emperor. The Pope, who was blind and had had his tongue cut out, did not feel safe.

He desperately wanted the Imperial Power to cover the City of Rome.

This was a cosmic challenge, because the Emperor — actually Empress — in Constantinople was not only an Imperial power but a power in the religious area as well. The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea which defined the Christian Faith, though he himself was not only not a bishop but was unbaptized. He was referred to by all bishops as The Supreme Bishop.

Today the Eastern Church still considers itself a part of the State, a subject of the Emperor.

The Pope had to redefine ALL of that. So he produced a forgery called the Donation of Constantine.

The history I have just explained is justified by the fact that this forgery was supposedly written by the EMPEROR, not by Saint Peter or Paul or any other religious authority. In the Donation, Constantine gave the Church to the Pope.

People KNOW this, but they don’t THINK about it. For centuries the Papacy based its claim to power on being given power by an Emperor. That meant the Emperor had it to give. People never THINK about that, just as they never think about the Temptation of Christ, when Satan offered all the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus.

The latter meant that it is assumed that Satan OWNED the kingdoms of the Earth, which is definitely not Old Testament, but is pure Zoroastrianism.

The Donation was discredited in the fifteenth century, when literacy was so widespread that the word could spread before, as he expected and said, it could be burned at the stake.

This was just before printing took over. And that in itself, if you THINK about it, can tell you a lot. In the West, literacy was ready for print. Print became powerful in the West because it did not appear in a vacuum and disappear in the same vacuum as it did in the Far East.

If the RICO Act were enforced, every bishop of the Catholic Church would be in prison. I say this because you have a simple choice, either every bishop knew about the shifting of pedophile priests from diocese to diocese, or they were ignoramuses about the reality of the Church, and you don’t get your miter in that crowd without being sharp.

If I understand the RICO Act correctly, and as I say I never did anything legal in Washington, if a higher up knows illegal orders are being given and does not report them, he, as part of the organization, is as liable as the one who gives orders.

This is never fully enforced against ANYONE, let alone the church to which over a quarter of Americans belong. As Organized Crime Attorneys have doubtless pointed out thousands of times in and out of court, if RICO were enforced against almost ANY organization the way it is against The Mafia and its relatives, the heads of about every major corporation and every church in America would be behind bars.

As far as my limited legal knowledge goes, that is perfectly true.

So we are in the peculiar position of saying the hiding of a few findings on nicotine or a few rigged crash-tests or a few bishops causing more pederastry than any single pederast could even imagine has to be OK.

After all, the last two letters of RICO stand for Corrupt Organizations. One could say that organized crime is ALL corrupt, though both the Godfathers died trying to make most of their activities legit. And that, of course, is one of the themes of The Godfather: You think you’re out but they drag you back in.

But this brings up the question, Are you EVER out?

The answer has to be yes. The logic the Church uses for its Pro-Life stance cannot be applied to anything in life, least of all the Church itself. If the Church enforced the same logic it uses on abortion on itself, it would have to disband.

Even if one must say that the Church itself cannot disband, its doctrine declares it eternal despite error, every Catholic organization short of the Church itself could probably be forced to disband by its own pro-Life, no-compromise language.

And by its own pro-pederast actions.

This is has been an exercise in thinking out loud. My Mantra mindset says that there is something fundamentally wrong about banning all medical use of fetal material while at the same time forgetting the giant, life-ruining pederastry, I for one do not find all that excusable.

When slobbering over anti-Semitism became chic, the Pope went to Israel to do his blubbering. But If he has taken any similar action about DECADES of ruining the lives of Catholic boys, I have yet to hear of it.

I think the lesson is one we all know, but which needs to be brought out from time to time. It is the same lesson that is taught by the example of J. Edgar Hoover:

Every FAMOUS moralist, be he a person or a Church, talks unconditional morality and practices BRAZEN selective morality. Today the judge of who becomes a FAMOUS moralist, as the Church must be to get money and maintain power, is the media.

What I have just said is obvious to every adult, but it has not been long since there was no place to say it.

Now there is.

And that could make “practicality” in the new age a totally different thing.

I have stayed ahead in daily articles until this bout with flu. The last time I dropped out for a while, BoardAd kept us running with Blasts From the Past, but he became very discouraged because our numbers dropped steeply.

Lots of people say size doesn’t matter.

But the competition between blogs is enormous, and if I am going to give up thinking and just repeat what I thought before, I might as well make money at it as a respectable conservative or get rich on it at the SPLC.

It is interesting how much one can tell about real history from the few times Politically Correctness shows MERCY to those it hates. They hate J. Edgar Hoover because he is seen as an enemy to the advocates of a People’s Peace Loving Democracy McCarthy attacked.

He criticized Saint Martin Luther the King because he kept open Communists as advisers. He even criticized Paul Robeson, whom the New York Times described in his obituary as “a lifetime advocate of human rights and a disciple of Joseph Stalin until his (Robeson‘s) death.”

What the media never mention is the reason why Hoover declared the Mafia to be a myth. It had nothing to do with his homosexuality. If the Mafia had a picture of his making love to his live-in Deputy head of the FBI, FBI experts would have declared it to be a made-up picture.

We are familiar enough with kept “science,” like Climategate, to know about this. We all know that the Genome Project will never say one thing that does not support Political Correctness. And where do did all local police, and even Interpol, send photographs to be verified?

To the FBI in Washington, of course.

So why is the media so uninterested in why Hoover declared that the mafia was scientifically proved to be a myth, just as the Genome Project says race is?

For very simple reason: the FBI wanted to look invincible, and Organized Crime was LOT bigger than the FBI was. So the FBI bought out white trash relatives of Klansmen and made huge progress in crushing a much smaller and more divided foe.

The media don’t want to criticize THAT.

But that was, for Hoover, a diversion. He knew what the media wanted, and the media didn’t care whether Organized Crime died or prospered. It wanted Southern resistance crushed.

Hoover was a master politician. Like Churchill, he did not care what he did to the world so long as he kept power. And unlike Churchill he DID keep power, whereas the world spit Churchill out.

The simple fact is that any attempt to deal with organized crime in Hoover’s time was doomed. So J. Edgar declared it a myth until that disastrous meeting in the mountains made it too obvious to declare mythological any more. But that was in the 50s, I believe.

Hoover was right. He couldn’t deal with Organized Crime. It was not until the passage of the RICO Acts that a crime boss could be charged EFFECTIVELY with crimes committed on his orders. The Warren Court worked desperately hard to defend all criminals, especially the big ones, and you couldn’t get anybody for drugs unless you found drugs ON them, and then it wasn’t easy.

No big man in the Mafia ever had drugs within a football field of him. So it was obvious that all the law enforcement agencies got nothing but small fry, and it didn’t look good. Hoover had been right to defend the Mafia all that time in order to keep his image.

Hoover was also as helpless against the Communists in the US as anyone else. He abandoned McCarthy. He wouldn’t have been surprised to know that practically everyone McCarthy accused turned up in KGB files, but that was not his problem.

Hoover wanted to do things that showed him invincible. Preferably things to media would LIKE. So he did that by buying off white trash.

From the Commenters

Copyright Policies

Robert Whitaker grants full and free use of his ideas and writings as they pertain to aiding others in stating the facts about white race genocide and its agenda of forced non-white immigration and integration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.

Login to the Swarm

Log In

Username:

Password:

Remember Me

Hover over box LOOK for captcha TYPE into box - it is always the same one!

In A Few Words

Bob Whitaker has "been there and done that" in the world of politics. His unique perspective is insightful and vital. You may not agree with everything he says, but I guarantee that he will make you think.

Robert W. Whitaker was born and raised in South Carolina and attended the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia Graduate School. He has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill senior staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and two books. Bob now lives in Columbia, SC. He has asked me to inform female readers that he is divorced and "wildly attractive." I agree that he is divorced. Bob welcomes your comments.